Tuesday

I'm going to spoil the end of the movie Cloverfield. I'll post a fuller review later for those of you who think you might watch it. If you're undecided, I should just say that it is a great monster movie, definitely worth watching. So, this post remains for those of you who have seen the film, or know you never will. Near the end, the character who has been holding the camera throughout dies. In his commentary to the DVD, the director Matt Reeves says that this is a great and exciting shock to all monster movie fans. It's as if Sam Neill had died at the end of Jurassic Park, or Matthew Broderick in Godzilla. Or is it? Throughout the film the man holding the camera is distanced from us. In fact, we don't begin with him at all. He is thrust on us after five minutes. From the start, he is a comic character, clearly not a main participator. We are shown his weaknesses and failings. He's not involved in decision making. When we see it from this point of view, we realise the director has not been shocking at all when he kills this character at the end. The director has been quite traditional. Remember the rules of the horror genre set out in Scream? If you have sex, you're going to die, only virgins survive. In less crude terms, what this means is that flawed characters will not survive, or at least characters with flaws that are not redeemable. Main characters are usually flawed, but their flaws are forgivable. In Scream, Sidney has sex, but she was tricked into it, she went into it with honest intentions, and so she survives. Both Scream and Cloverfield, whilst pretending to subvert the rules of their genres, in fact maintain them.

Friday

If you loved the previous movies of Wes Anderson, then no doubt you'll love The Darjeeling Limited. It contains all of his, now trademark, stylised camera movements, music, creative set design and dry sense of humour. What happens, however, if you've never seen or liked his films? I have to say that you probably won't like this one. There is not much direction, or drive, to the narrative, and little real interest in the characters. Instead of smiling when you recognise a deliberately unsteady zoom-in, you'll probably feel disconcerted. Wes Anderson has created a world for himself that he might find it difficult to get out of. Nonetheless, as I said, I still loved this film and would happily watch it again. Something should be said, however, about the short film Hotel Chevalier, which prefaces the main movie. It contains one of the characters, and some minor plot points that will reappear later, though that doesn't make it necessary. I read one review that said they preferred the short to the long film. I can't agree. I was left amused, but generally not intrigued by it. Natalie Portman just isn't a good actress, I don't think. So, I would suggest renting if not buying this movie for Anderson fans, but then they knew that already; anyone else should be cautious.